It's called equivocation, and it's a fallacy in thought.

Good call bushido.

In order to have the point of view of an apple, I would have to become or be an apple.

But I can imagine I am an apple.

Apples how ever do not have eyes from which to see, my view point comes from my eyes. Really a side note.

View = to see, or perspective
Point = a marker to delineate a position in space.

This is the literal definition. Now if we took me and put it in the place of the apple I could see things from the position of an apple, this is NOT the same as Trying to equivocate that with the metaphorical usage such as Einstein had a different view point than Niels Bohr on Quantum indeterminacy, or any other non-spatial concept.

There is no universe where determinacy is one dimension and indeterminacy another, that is not the way this was meant and cannot be used in that way logically. It IS nonsense, much like asking what blue sounds like.

That is why it is metaphorical in the second usage, it does not match up directly with the literal definition of points in space that a subject views from.

You cannot go about mixing metaphor and science when making logical arguments.

Of course none of us think you meant that Einstein had super hero powers and could teleport himself outside of reality and thus just look at the universe and literally see how it worked right?
Tell me that is not what you meant? right?


Side notes, also Abra you have read the history around his discoveries right? I mean in your explanation is sounded much like you thought the concept of the constant nature of light was introduced by his theories, that is wrong. The constant nature of light was something played around with by many physicists of the day, most where wondering if it was constant or if all the tests they had done where just not accurate enough. Many experimentalist physicists had already come to the conclusion that light was constant, but could not explain it. In fact this was true of every single thing you mentioned.

In fact what Einstein did was exactly what creative is saying is "Truth" he was able to determine the relationships between these factors and came up with the only thing that would work given each of these facts: General Relativity.

The facts did not come out of his theory, he theory came out of the facts.

Don't tell me about sloppy language Bushido. I've been through that crap with people like Micheal before. It's nonsense. It ends up being nothing more than semantic mumbo jumbo that gets NOWHERE!

I'm in total agreement with Richard Feynman's view of philosophers.

"We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" - Richard Feynman

That kind of semantic stupidity is a waste of everyone's times and can never lead anywhere.

Philosophers who specifically refer to dictionary definitions are the greatest culprits of philosophical stupidity. If philosophy were that easy we'd be DONE!

If there is anything you want to KNOW just look it up in the dictionary!

That's precisely how stupid that is!

If you want to actually move beyond the knowledge that is published in dictionaries then you better be prepared to have a REAL CONVERSATION and not hide behind pre-printed semantics just for the sake of trying to support mumbo jumbo arguments.

Richard Feynman again:

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."

If you really want to learn something the first thing you need to do is toss your dictionaries out and quit getting hung up on semantics.

I think any layman can understand what I was talking about when I say Albert Einstein stepped out of the box of human experiences and instead too the point of view of the universe.

Only people who want to argue semantics would take issue with that.

Most people simply comprehend the CONCEPT they lies beyond the words.

Semantic philosophers are a dime a dozen, and the truth is that they can never get past their dictionaries!

Their sum total of knowledge has already been recorded in dictionaries.

Yep, you gotta move beyond that if you want to make PROGRESS.

I'd rather talk with someone who can understand the concepts to which I speak, rather than with someone who is just going to sit there and say, "Duh? I can't find what you are saying in my dictionary".



If they have to compare everything you say with what their dictionary approves of, then what's the point in even talking with them. Just let them sit there and read their dictionaries.

Abra when you want to have a good conversation with someone, you have to agree on "meanings". I could call a peach a pear and always make that mistake but if you knew what I meant and I was consistent all is well.

A dictionary can help sort out various meanings, after all I have never found a word in a dictionary that didn't have several possible meanings, and most often I can even list some not listed, as I am sure you can yourself.

When you are forming a logical statement, or argument you cannot shift the meaning of the terms within that argument or statement.

This is true of math, something both of us enjoy, right!?

We both understand that you cannot change a term in mid statement. Quick way to get the wrong answer.

So that is what you did there, no reason to go full tilt bro : )

Irrelevant to the point being made. I objected on two separate grounds. The first being that one cannot acquire a viewpoint which does not exist. The other being that one cannot step outside of their own thought/belief. Einstein's viewpoint was unconventional. I never said otherwise, neither does that follow from anything I have said, negate anything I said, nor does that pertain to what I've said.

Einstein's viewpoint was his viewpoint. That viewpoint was a product of, was completely contained within, and completely contingent upon the existence of his own thought/belief. That is my point. Simple and true.



Trivially true. Clarification seems needed. What makes something quite literally nonsense, on my view, is to use put forth any argument whatsoever that either blatantly suggests or covertly denies the need for one's own perceptual faculty(thought/belief) in order to acquire knowledge. To talk about stepping outside of one's own viewpoint is to talk about stepping outside of one's own thoughts. It is to talk about stepping outside of one's own frame of reference. It is nonsensical talk.

We can become aware of frames of reference, as Einstein did from becoming aware of our own. We can imagine things about another's frame of reference. We can listen. We can look. We can think. We cannot step outside of our own physiological sensory perception, which is exactly what it would take in order to be able to step outside one's own belief-system.



This is ironic. Viewpoints are contingent upon our thought/belief. We are all limited to our own personal viewpoints. We are all situated within our own frames of reference. We all think about things that happen within our own physical frame of reference, and our own mental frame of reference(belief-system). That is not to say that we cannot acquire understanding of and assimilate another's thought, beliefs, and ideas. That is not to say that we cannot arrive at new ideas ourselves. That is not to say that we cannot come to acquire new knowledge. It is only to say that we are all limited in these ways... necessarily so.

Now the above quote is clearly an allegation being put forth by you regarding my ability to grasp various viewpoints. It is a claim to knowledge about my ability. My ability is a part of the way things are. Therefore, it is a truth claim regarding the way things are. Your claims exude certainty that resides in your own point of view, based upon your own belief-system regarding what you think you know about my mental capabilities. That is curious enough, in and of itself. However, taking it even further, you've wrongfully concluded by claiming that my alleged 'inability' to grasp various viewpoints is why I call things "nonsense". Now, you ought know better.

This entire thread is an exercise in putting another's viewpoint, or at least a part of it, into practice. All we need to do in order to grasp another's viewpoint is to understand what it means. If we know what it would tak for another's claim to be true, then by default alone we know what they mean. We grasp their viewpoint.

So what do we do Abra? Throw the rules of language out the window? throw the rules of logic out the window. Throw the law of non-contradiction out the window? You took that rant way too far.


'/;lj hgiuyrdf;byfr02 nx[9u7gtx4]cc9gpuxgyc jn[cun 2[ijck '[xuyg9ij1jbgfcxa7esdwb xc3ygcj ckmc[i0unxbpyhb jc3bhiun' ;iwhgx[uc cjb[n '[cowuh[ivnk n

Know what I mean?

There are no private languages.

The term "view point" while "view" implies "eyes" or "seeing" it does not always mean that.

wiki:

Physicists use the term "observer" as shorthand for a specific reference frame from which a set of objects or events is being measured. Speaking of an observer in special relativity is not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there is a sentient being within the inertial reference frame to witness them.

The term observer in special relativity refers most commonly to an inertial reference frame. Less often it may refer to an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame; in particular, a Rindler frame is sometimes called an "accelerating observer". In such cases an inertial reference frame may be called an "inertial observer" to avoid ambiguity.

Note that these uses differ significantly from the ordinary English meaning of "observer".

Reference frames are inherently nonlocal constructs, covering all of space and time or a nontrivial part of it; thus it does not make sense to speak of an observer (in the special relativistic sense) having a location. Also, an inertial observer cannot accelerate at a later time, nor can an accelerating observer stop accelerating.

Bushi:

If your viewpoint comes from your eyes then you have two viewpoints because you have two eyes.

I discovered this first hand while painting still life. From one eye to the next, the position of the objects in relation to each other changed.

Point of view and view point are essentially the same thing, but it could mean a "visual" view point, or it could refer to a mental view point.

I think that when the term is used for a mental point of view it refers to an opinion.

Out of body experience.



Ever have one?

What would it take for an out of body experience to happen?

Point of view leaves the body.

What is viewing then?

Seeing, knowing, experiencing.

When I dream my eyes are closed, and yet I see.

So are eyes really necessary to see?

What(or should I say who) is seeing, knowing, and experiencing?

When you dream your brain is active, it is also not out of your body.

The observer.

(the dream was simply an example of seeing with no eyes.)

Who is the observer?

I AM.